Quote:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy
I think it was Dak earlier in the thread pointed out that a higher percentage of SEC teams have been to the title conference game than Big 12 teams. The way I see it, the top of the SEC is slightly better than the top of the BIG 12, but mid-level teams in the SEC are tougher by a fair amount. I think Mizzou can adjust and compete with the mid grade teams, and maybe occasionally take out one of the big dogs. I don't see Tiger football being in the bottom of the SEC.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
MU can be compete annually with Georgia and South Carolina easily.
Florida, Bama and LSU are the hogs in the conference and they'll likely be similar to OU, NE and UT for us when there was a healthy 12-team league in the XII.
But you'll note that there hasn't been a healthy 12-teamer in these parts for a bit now and it doesn't seem real likely that TCU is going to solve what ails us.
Getting out of the XII is the right move. In the SEC we'll be about where we've been for the last decade or so in the XII. Only we'll be getting paid more to do it. I can live with that.
|
Considering Florida, Bama, and LSU are a combined 10-3 in BCS bowls while OU, UT, and Nebraska are a combined 7-7.. I"m going to go with the top of the SEC being more than a little better than the top of the Big XII.
